Forum > Articles

Some notes on barbarians

<< < (2/4) > >>


--- Quote from: Edgewise;880870 ---Merging Northern and Far Northern?  That would essentially be merging Inuits with Vikings, but perhaps you didn't recognize what OP was getting at with the Far Northerners.
--- End quote ---

No, I did. It's just that they have some similarities, when you try to build PCs from both. But that's why I said "maybe":).

--- Quote ---As for Ear Eastern versus Eastern, that would be combining the Huns and Mongols.  That seems more defensible to me.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---After all, the descriptions here are intentionally written from the perspective of a "civilized" culture at the "center" of the world, so it makes sense to see both those cultures as undifferentiated threatening hordes.
--- End quote ---

No, it just means that the Huns and Mongols had way more relations than is commonly acknowledged, and some of the traits listed for one people are common for both. That was, mostly, a mechanical comment;).

I thought the Eastern Barbarians were more like a fantasy take on Slavs( pre conversion).

But I can see how the Volkerwanderung era Hunnic federation/Kingdom with all its numerous German and other tribes, many of the men fighting on foot, could fit the mold.

One of the advantages of the approach the OP has taken are that, while clear historical roots can be seen, the material is generic and can be adapted with ease to different settings.

I like this stuff, OP.

I'm tired of the raging barbarian trope, so over-done.

The word barbarian, etymologically, comes from a Greek onomatopiea for baby talk... 'ba ba rus', and denoted non-greek speakers.  Traditionally the division between 'barbarians' as savages and civilized peoples is not something esoteric, such as writing, but something a bit more crucial to 'civilization', that is the presence and occupation of Cities, which is part of the etymology of Civilization, by the way.

Classically, the barbarians of history were steppe nomads, horse riders, who would sweep west from time to time, conquering and then settling, in the cities along the silk road, occasionally going further and further west. We know the Sythians, the Magyar, the Huns, the Mongols, the Samartians, the Turks, even the Iranians.

How the fuck this got conflated with some shirtless asshole swinging an ax while foaming at the mouth probably lies squarely at the feet of one Robert Howard.   Properly speaking, Conan needed a horse and a bow, bandy legs and so forth.  But we probably would find his adventures boring, so instead we have a more classic bear shirt trope re-labeled as a barbarian. Enter D&D to fuck it up even more, and the rest is, sadly, history.

Ah, but Conan is not always a shirtless asshole swinging an axe. If he has access to it and needs it, he will wear armour. At least in the stories I've read.

Shirtless or not, he does not foam at the mouth. He is swift and powerful, and his primal instincts make up for a lack of skill with the blade. But he does not enter into mindless rages. At least not in the stories I've read. This whole berserker thing must come from another direction, surely.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version